Skip to main content

Table 2 Quality assessment of reviews of determinants of dietary behavior among youth

From: Determinants of dietary behavior among youth: an umbrella review

Quality assessment criteria Was there a clearly defined search strategy? 1 Was the search strategy comprehensive? 2 Are inclusion/ exclusion criteria clearly stated? Are the designs and number of included studies clearly stated? Has the quality of primary studies been assessed? Did the quality assessment include study design, study sample, outcome measures or follow-up (at least 2 of 4) Does the review integrate findings beyond describing or listing findings of primary studies? Has more than one author been involved in the data screening and/or abstraction process? Sum quality score
Williams [31] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
Gardner [17]* 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 7
Pearson & Biddle [19]* 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 6
Adriaanse [15]* 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 5
McClain [24] 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Van der Horst [29] 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 5
Pearson [25] 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 5
De Craemer [21] 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 6
Pearson [26] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 7
Verloigne [30] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 7
Ford [22] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
Caspi [16]* 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2
Moore & Cunningham [18]* 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 6
Lawman & Wilson [23] 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 6
Sleddens [28] 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 5
Berge [20] 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 5
Rasmussen [27] 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
  8/17 15/17 17/17 16/17 10/17 10/17 17/17 9/17  
  1. Note: 1A search is rated clearly defined if at least search words and a flow chart is presented; 2A search is rated as comprehensive if at least two databases and the reference lists of examined papers were searched. *Reviews also including adults; weak (score ranging from 0–3) n = 1 (5.88%), moderate (score ranging from 4–6) n = 9 (52.94%), strong (score ranging from 7–8) n = 7 (41.18%).